Below is an article by George Will concerning the birth rights of babies born to illegals.  The US Congress must stop this crazy idea that babies of illegals are US citizens.  This illegal right brings millions of illegals to the US and this must stop.  Our elected politicians are not doing their job of protecting American citizens and protecting our Constitution.


An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship

By George F. Will
Sunday, March 28, 2010; A15 Washington Post



A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.

To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.

A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is derived: "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:

"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two "principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment." He said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship.

Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." Graglia says this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States." So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."

Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to those whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law."

More communities need to do what they did in Victoria, Texas--boycott of illegal aliens.

An interesting event happened in Victoria, Texas, population of 55,000 and about 80 miles west of Houston.
 
Local Hispanic leaders there, in opposition to pending Immigration Legislation, boycotted all Caucasian owned  businesses in the Victoria area this past weekend as a demonstration of their economic impact on the community.  The boycott was declared a success by the Hispanic community, noting that revenue in Caucasian owned businesses was down by 19%.
 
Business owners declared the boycott a success as well, pointing out that shoplifting was reduced by 77%, money orders sent out of the country were down by 97%, and the cost of daily clean-up and trash collection was down by 84%.  Shoppers reported that they could actually hear English being spoken throughout the community for the first time in recent memory, and customers actually paid for purchases with real money, not government debit cards.

Mayve CASA of Maryland will organize a boycott here in Maryland!!!!

Senate Stimulus: 300,000 Jobs for Illegals?

1 in 7 New Construction Jobs Could Go to Illegal Immigrants

WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 4, 2008) — The Senate Stimulus bill currently being considered contains about $104 billion in new government funding for construction projects with the goal of creating jobs for millions of unemployed Americans. Unlike the House version, there is no provision in the bill to bar illegal immigrants from getting these taxpayer-funded jobs. This could result in several hundred thousand illegal immigrants receiving jobs.


The current version of the Senate Stimulus bill (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) contains $104 billion in construction spending, including highways, schools, and public housing.

Government estimates suggest this spending should create about 2 million new construction jobs.

Consistent with other research, the Center Immigration Studies has previously estimated that 15 percent of construction workers are illegal immigrants.

This means that about 300,000 of the construction jobs created by the Senate stimulus could go to illegal aliens (15 percent of 2 million).

Discussion: The $104 billion figure for new construction is based on the current version of the Senate Stimulus bill. Government estimates indicate that each $1 billion spent on construction should create roughly 19,600 construction jobs, each lasting a year.1 Thus $104 billion for construction projects should create construction-related jobs for about 2.04 million workers over several years. The Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that about one out of seven (or 15 percent) of workers employed in construction in the United States are illegal immigrants.2 Thus, if no effort is made to bar illegal immigrants from these jobs, it is extremely likely that about 300,000 will go to illegal immigrants. The House of Representatives version of the stimulus package has a provision requiring contractors to use the E-Verify system, which enables employers to quickly determine if new hires are authorized to work in the United States. At present, the Senate has no such provision.


1 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates indicate that each $1 billion in construction spending directly creates 19,584 construction related jobs. This number comes from Employment Impacts of Highway Infrastructure Investment, April 2008, FHWA. This figure does not include jobs indirectly created by construction spending.

2 Steven A. Camarota, “Dropping Out: Immigrant Entry and Native Exit From the Labor Market, 2000-2005,” Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, March 2006, p. 19. A 2006 Pew Hispanic Center study, “The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.,” estimated that 14 percent of construction workers were illegal immigrants; see page 3 of that report. Both the CIS and Pew studies were based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey (CPS). The March 2007 CPS shows that the illegal share of construction workers may have grown to 18 percent, but we use 15 percent in the above discussion to be conservative.

We are making progress in Montgomery County with illegal immigration--it is sad that recent murders have happened for the politicians to act.  County Executive Leggett is responsible for the high murder and crime rate due to his "Open-Border" policy for illegal immigrants. 

Montgomery Police Seek Tougher Line On Immigrant Status
Detainees' Residency Would Be Checked In Cases Involving Weapons, Violence
   
By Dan Morse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 1, 2009; Page B01

Montgomery County police are seeking approval to ask suspects arrested for violent crimes and weapons offenses about their immigration status, an about-face in a county whose leaders for years declined to do so even as police agencies elsewhere in the region began aggressive efforts to identify illegal immigrants.

The proposal, developed by Chief J. Thomas Manger and his senior staff, comes after two alleged illegal immigrants were charged in the fatal shooting of a 14-year-old honor student on a county transit bus and after another alleged illegal immigrant was charged in a string of home invasions and the slaying of a 63-year-old Bethesda resident in her home.

"All public officials have been receiving questions from citizens who are asking, 'Why are persons who are in the country illegally or unlawfully allowed to remain?' " said Wayne M. Jerman, an assistant police chief.

Jerman said the policy is not ideologically driven. Rather, he said, police officials see immigration violations as another tool to get dangerous criminals off the streets. The proposal will not go into effect without the approval of County Executive Isiah Leggett, who once angrily told a crowd that the county is "not in the business of enforcing immigration issues." Through a spokesman, Leggett declined to comment. It is unclear when he will make a decision.
Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Montgomery) said she and other immigrant advocates have met with Leggett to convey their opposition to the policy change. She said it could lead to racial profiling and constitutional violations.